AF security-review
Runs a guided, end-to-end security review of a Power Pages site and consolidates every finding into one HTML report covering source code and dependencies, the live site, browser headers, firewall, authentication, and role-based permissions. Use when the user wants a full security review, a release-readiness check before publishing, a code-and-config check during development, live site monitoring, or asks open-ended questions like "review my site security", "is my site safe to ship", "do a security check", "monitor my site" — even if they do not name the individual checks.
Runs a guided, end-to-end security review of a Power Pages site and consolidates every finding into one HTML report covering source code and dependencies, the…
As a process F 61/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: scripts/render-review.js
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Bash Glob Grep AskUserQuestion TaskCreate TaskUpdate TaskList Skill Agent
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/render-review.js
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/render-review.js
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4114 tokens
- 85Steps. 19 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (10 tags): a typed call is more reliable
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 578: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 28 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.